CLIPS: 12 May, 2022
Roe Leak Leads Privacy Experts To Connect Digital Autonomy To Bodily Autonomy
Since a leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade became public last week, privacy advocates have sounded the alarm about how data brokers buy and sell data that could be used to put women seeking reproductive health services at risk. Last week, the data broker SafeGraph pledged to stop selling location data of those who visited abortion clinics. Since then, media reports and privacy advocates have raised more concerns about the likelihood of anti-choice advocates or the government weaponizing data purchased from data brokers to prevent or discourage women from accessing abortion services.
Privacy experts including Riana Pfefferkorn and Evan Greer have pointed to encrypted messaging apps as one way for women to protect themselves from certain forms of surveillance. Even though encryption does not prevent data brokers from selling an individual’s location data, in a post-Roe world, experts argue, you can’t be pro-choice and anti-encryption. The concerns about data brokers selling information are also connected to the lack of consumer privacy laws, according to some policymakers. In a panel hosted by Aspen Digital on Wednesday, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden said a federal consumer privacy law was the only sure way to establish base privacy rights to protect user data from broker collection, highlighting bipartisan support for his Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act. He also added that Section 230 preempts state laws, which means that it could offer protection from state efforts to criminalize discussions of abortion online. (NOTE: Please find digital security and privacy tips for those involved in abortion access here.)
COVERAGE:
Axios, Without Roe, data will become a company headache and a user nightmare
NPR, How period tracking apps and data privacy fit into a post-Roe v. Wade climate
Washington Post, Law enforcement may fully unleash its data collection tools on abortion
Slate, The Potential Overturn of Roe Shows Why We Need More Digital Privacy Protections
Wired, How to Protect Your Digital Privacy if Roe v. Wade Falls
Stanford Law School CIS, The End Of Roe Will Bring About A Sea Change In The Encryption Debate
Electronic Frontier Foundation, Digital Security and Privacy Tips for Those Involved in Abortion Access
RESPONSES
Aspen Digital tweeted, “Unregulated digital forensics are already deployed against marginalized groups—how will they be used post-Roe? How can you protect your own info online?“
Evan Greer, director of Fight for the Future, tweeted, “EARN IT Act would discourage major tech platforms from implementing end-to-end encryption or making it a default, meaning that more and more incredibly sensitive information will be accessible to law enforcement with minimal oversight or due process. Nightmare in a post Roe world”
They later tweeted, “if you're pro-choice you can't be anti-encryption // if you're pro-choice you can't be anti Section 230 // if you're pro-choice you can't oppose real Federal data privacy legislation // if you're pro-choice you can't support geofence warrants and mass surveillance // looking at you Dems”
UC Davis Law Professor Elizabeth Joh tweeted, “The end of Roe isn’t going to turn back the clock. Things will be worse. Why? Because of the surveillance economy. “
The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Director of Cybersecurity Eva Galperin agreed, tweeting, “This take is the right take.”
Riana Pfefferkorn, a research scholar at the Stanford Internet Observatory, tweeted, “Let me especially emphasize that last point. If you're a Democratic lawmaker who's spent the past week talking about how you're pro-choice and privacy is a right and abortion is health care not a crime, I don't ever want to see you vote to weaken encryption ever fucking again.”
She continued, tweeting, “I'm looking at every single Democratic Senator who voted to pass the #EARNITAct out of Senate Judiciary. When abortion is a crime, "encryption is bad for public safety b/c it impedes police from investigating crimes" is no longer an acceptable stance for a pro-choice lawmaker.”
Senator Ron Wyden tweeted, “If you're a woman in America, there's a real chance your geolocation data, web searches, phone records and more could be weaponized against you if you seek out an abortion…”
Alvaro Bedoya Finally Confirmed To The FTC
On Wednesday, the Senate voted to confirm Alvaro Bedoya to former commissioner Rohit Chopra's vacant seat on the Federal Trade Commission. Vice President Kamala Harris voted to break a 50-50 tie, giving Democrats a 3-2 majority at the agency. The announcement concludes a months-long effort by Republicans to prevent Bedoya’s confirmation, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer saying that the FTC will now “be empowered to drive full steam ahead in cracking down on bad actor companies who are using anti-competitive practices, inflation, and price manipulation to bilk consumers and drive up profits.” (NOTE: The Federal Trade Commission and The Department of Justice are hosting a listening forum focused on antitrust concerns in the technology sector today.)
Progressive advocates have actively campaigned for Bedoya since his nomination last September. They used the opportunity to praise his record of advocating for privacy protections, as well as push for the confirmation of Gigi Sohn to the FCC, in order to break a similar deadlock and allow for meaningful federal action on net neutrality, consumer privacy legislation, and more.
COVERAGE
CNN, Senate confirms Bedoya to be Federal Trade Commissioner
Reuters, U.S. Senate confirms Bedoya, giving Democrats FTC control
Axios, Senate confirms Bedoya for FTC seat, giving Democrats majority
Washington Post, Alvaro Bedoya confirmed for FTC, breaking long deadlock
Bloomberg, FTC’s Khan Gets Path to Go Big on Antitrust With Biden’s Nominee
The Verge, Senate confirms Bedoya to FTC, establishing Democratic majority
Protocol, With Bedoya confirmed, tech needs to look out for the FTC
RESPONSES
In a statement, the Open Technology Institute wrote: “Professor Bedoya is an accomplished scholar with a proven record as an institution-builder and a consensus-builder. His expertise and dedication to the public interest are precisely what the American people need in an FTC commissioner. We congratulate him on his confirmation and look forward to the FTC returning to full capacity.”
In a statement, FFTF wrote: “Alvaro Bedoya’s confirmation to the FTC could not come soon enough… Now, Democrats need to get their act together and move quickly to confirm Gigi Sohn to FCC. Nearly everything that Democratic leadership in Congress and the Biden administration have promised when it comes to digital rights, broadband equity, and net neutrality depends on having a fully staffed FCC. But instead of sticking up for their nominee, top Democrats have been largely silent while Sohn has faced a coordinated smear campaign funded by the telecom industry.”
In a statement, Public Knowledge wrote: “With another consumer champion in place at the FTC, Chairwoman Khan now has a fully functioning agency poised to enforce the nation’s antitrust and consumer protection laws. This means the agency is equipped with the team it needs to publish rules and launch bold cases to promote competition and protect consumers.”
In a statement, Free Press wrote, “Alvaro Bedoya's appointment will finally allow this vital and reinvigorated agency to get to work on protecting people, promoting competition and holding powerful companies accountable… Now we urge the Senate to move with the greatest urgency to fill other key regulatory roles that have been vacant since President Biden took office — starting with a vote as soon as possible to confirm Gigi Sohn as FCC commissioner. An industry-backed smear campaign aimed at hobbling the FCC has obstructed progress on Sohn’s nomination for more than six months. Any further delay will only harm the administration’s priorities and leave media, tech and telecom companies without crucial oversight and accountability.”
In a statement, the American Economic Liberties Project wrote: “The FTC’s open commission meetings and recent learning forums have demonstrated without a doubt that consumers, working people, and honest businesses are being systematically crushed and abused by dominant corporations… [T]oday’s Senate vote to confirm Mr. Bedoya will help ensure the FTC fights for fair competition and fulfills its historic mission.”
Director of Research Matt Stoller tweeted, “Today, there is FINALLY a Democratic majority at the Federal Trade Commission. It took Biden nine months to nominate Alvaro Bedoya, and another eight months to confirm him. Now there's going to be action.”
EFF tweeted, “Congratulations to Professor Bedoya on his confirmation to the @FTC. Consumers will benefit with having a long time champion of user privacy at the federal agency. It is finally time for a fully staffed FTC to get to work on competition and privacy.”
VP of U.S. policy at Future of Privacy, Amie Stepanovich, tweeted, “The ridiculous trajectory of Alvaro Bedoya's nomination to the FTC (so far) is a sad omen for this country. Why would someone so incredibly qualified and experienced subject themselves to this when they have probably a million options. Then again, that's probably the point.”
She continued, “The pressure here is tantamount to creating two paths for folks who are civic-minded: 1. Ignore the responsibility to serve the country and go do other things. 2. Never, ever voice a political opinion on social media. Their strategy is aimed at exactly these chilling effects.”
Zephyr Teachout tweeted, “Congratulations Commissioner Bedoya!”
Jennifer Brody, U.S. lead at Access Now, tweeted, “At long last, Alvaro Bedoya — a digital rights champion — has been confirmed to the FTC! Now the agency has the votes to make moves.”
Elon Musk Claims To Support DSA & Content Moderation, While Seeking To Reverse Trump Twitter Ban
On Monday, Elon Musk spoke with the European Commissioner for Internal Market, Thierry Breton about the Digital Services Act, a recently-finalized EU measure that establishes new rules for platform intermediary liability and content moderation practices. Following the meeting, Musk remarked, “I think [the DSA] is exactly aligned with my thinking.”
The DSA would impose an extensive set of regulations on online platforms around their content moderation practices. Although the final text of the law has yet to be made public, experts including Stanford’s Daphne Keller have explained that the DSA will require platforms to remove illegal content (based on EU law) after they are notified about it by government officials and users. Platforms will need to assess and mitigate foreseeable risks to users that stem from their services. The DSA also requires platforms to be transparent about their moderation policies and share information about how they enforce them in practice. Violations of the DSA would be subject to fines of up to 6% of a company’s global annual revenue.
While the ultimate effect of the DSA on Musk's plans for Twitter is unclear, some media reports have pointed out that these new regulations may make it difficult for Musk to turn Twitter into a free speech haven as he has suggested in recent weeks. For example, Musk has argued that permanent bans are only appropriate for “bots or spam, scam accounts,” and that legitimate users would, at worst, have their accounts suspended or tweets hidden. Musk said this week that he seeks to reinstate Trump’s Twitter account, which could open the floodgates to others who were similarly banned and regularly spread misinformation, including Alex Jones, Steve Bannon, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s personal account.
COVERAGE:
Washington Post, Musk says he would reverse Twitter's ban of Donald Trump
New York Times, Elon Musk says he would ‘reverse the permanent ban’ of Donald Trump on Twitter.
Reuters, EU industry chief Breton, Musk signal agreement on Digital Services Act
The Verge, Elon Musk says he’s ‘very much on the same page’ as the EU on social media laws
CNN, Elon Musk says he is 'exactly aligned' with Europe's sweeping new rules for social media platforms
Mashable, Trump won't use Twitter even if Elon Musk reinstates him, according to Trump
RESPONSES
Accountable Tech tweeted, “Let's be clear: Elon Musk reinstating Trump would open the floodgates to hate and disinformation on Twitter.”
They also released a statement, saying, “This is not about Trump. It’s about Elon’s intention to roll back the basic safeguards Twitter has established in recognition of the real-world harm it drives without them – protections against things like targeted harassment, hate speech, violence, and medical misinformation. We can’t let that happen.”
Mike Masnick, writer and editor for Techdirt, tweeted, “Kind of telling (and not in a good way) that *this* is the reason Musk thought Twitter banned Trump. No one has ever argued it was to stop him from having a voice. It was to stop him from using *this* platform to agitate for violence. Apparently Musk is fine with that.”
Alex Stamos, Director of the Stanford Internet Observatory, tweeted, “Watching Elon try to openly recreate several decades of trust and safety work by tens of thousands of people from first principles is likely to give me a stroke.”
Justin Hendrix, an editor for Tech Policy Press, tweeted, “Donald Trump tried to destroy democracy and incited a white supremacist insurrection at the US Capitol. I will regard such a decision by Musk as abetting a dangerous demagogue who will no doubt attack the United States and its Constitution again.”
Andrew Lawrence, Deputy Director of Rapid Response at Media Matters for America, tweeted, “if youre a reporter and you get to interview elon musk and you ask him about reinstating trump but not if he will allow nazis to post propaganda and make subtle death threats then you are wasting all of our time”
Net Neutrality Advocates Criticize Biden’s Praise For ISPs That Have Blocked Sohn’s Nomination To FCC
On Monday, the White House announced a partnership with 20 internet service providers (ISPs) to help provide inexpensive high-speed internet plans to low-income Americans. The initiative dovetails with the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides eligible households with $30 monthly to cover costs for internet service (and whose rollout we detailed last November). During the announcement, President Biden praised the commitments from ISPs, saying that “[t]his is a case where big business stepped up.”
However, digital rights advocates were quick to point out that telecom giants created the “digital divide” to begin with and now stand to benefit from the subsidization of broadband access. The announcement was also criticized as a “distraction” from ISPs’ campaigns against the confirmation of Gigi Sohn to the FCC. Groups say Pres. Biden’s praise for ISPs’ non-binding commitments is confusing in the wake of industry attempts to undermine confirmation for Sohn (a proponent of reinstating federal net neutrality standards), and creates uncertainty around Biden’s priorities for broadband policy. Christopher Mitchell (director at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance) said it was very frustrating to “have the president talking about this while those companies are slandering his nominee for the FCC.”
In related news, last week Reuters reported that broadband lobbying groups had dropped their lawsuit against California’s net neutrality law, SB-822. With Sohn’s confirmation hanging in limbo and Democrats still lacking a majority at the FCC, debate about net neutrality may heat up at the state level, where seven states (including California, Washington, New York, and others) have already implemented net neutrality protections in lieu of federal standards.
COVERAGE
The Hill, Biden admin announces expansion of free high-speed internet to eligible US households
NBC, Biden announces expansion of high-speed internet to millions of low-income households
The Verge, Biden announces new partnership to expand broadband access
Washington Post, Biden locks arms with telecom giants, riling allies
Fast Company, Biden’s deal with ISPs won’t solve the country’s broadband problem
Community Networks, Biden Administration Celebrates Telecom Companies Undermining his Agenda
Open Technology Institute, Big Money for Broadband, A Risky Connection for You
RESPONSES
In a statement, Public Knowledge wrote: “It’s time for the Biden administration to live up to its commitments to competition in the broadband market. What we need is for the FCC – the regulatory agency designated by Congress to ensure robust, affordable broadband for all Americans – to gain its fifth commissioner: Gigi Sohn. This and other critical work of the FCC cannot get underway until the White House insists that the Senate take up a vote on her nomination.”
EFF tweeted, “It is unfortunate to see President Biden hold a press conference cheering some ISPs that are actively undermining his Administration's effort to staff the FCC to promote universal equal affordable access to all Americans.”
FFTF tweeted, “@JoeBiden and @SenSchumer promised to restore #netneutrality. But instead they're sitting on the sidelines while Big Telecom mounts a massive dark money funded smear campaign against their nominee to the FCC, Gigi Sohn. Where's the leadership? Do what you said you would do.”
Director Evan Greer tweeted, “It's not an ‘accusation’ it's just facts. Democrats promised to restore #netneutrality, but they're sitting on their hands while their FCC nominee Gigi Sohn is under constant attack by a telecom funded right wing dark money smear campaign. Enough is enough.”
The Center for Digital Democracy tweeted, “Opposition to Ms Sohn, as said here, is fear from powerful media connected lobbyists who do not want to see a @fcc support #consumers #viewers #competition #privacy #equity. They don’t want a #fcc working in public interest.”
In a statement, ILSR wrote: “The Biden Administration took a painfully long time to nominate the most obvious candidate for the position – Gigi Sohn – and has done precious little to have her confirmed in a reasonable time frame… To actually connect everyone, we will need an effective FCC as well as local engagement. However, some of the very companies being praised by the President today are spending millions in lobbying and ad-blitzes to prevent Gigi Sohn from being confirmed and to stop needed investments.”
Campaign Manager at Free Press, Heather Franklin, tweeted, “If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: the campaign against Gigi Sohn isn't about anything she's ever said or done. It's about holding an agency of the federal government hostage and able to do as little as possible to help people.”
In response to a statement that the Fraternal Order of Police would withhold their endorsement from any Senator who votes to confirm Sohn, reporter Karl Bode tweeted, “this is part of a manufactured smear campaign being run by AT&T and Comcast against a highly qualified and extremely popular FCC nominee literally everyone in the telecom/media space knows would be great on telecom monopolization, broadband affordability, and media consolidation.”
Legal Director at Public Knowledge, Shiva Stella, wrote in a statement: “After a string of defeats, including failing to convince a single judge on the 9th Circuit to vote to rehear their case, the group of internet service providers suing to overturn California’s net neutrality law has realized its efforts are futile. This is great news, but the effort to enact net neutrality rules nationwide must continue. The Senate must act to ensure we have a full Federal Communications Commission that can restore these important consumer protections for all Americans.”
Director of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society, Barbara van Schweick, wrote in an article: “As I’ve said from the beginning, California’s net neutrality law is based on a solid legal foundation. When the FCC abandoned net neutrality in 2017, it lost the power to stop the states from stepping in to protect their residents. Thanks to the hard work of California’s Attorney General and the wide coalition that helped defend the law in court, the ISPs gave up instead of fighting this to the Supreme Court.”
Whistleblower Alleges Facebook Intentionally Blocked Access to Emergency Services During Fight Over Australia's News Content Law
On Thursday, a report by the Wall Street Journal detailed whistleblower allegations that Facebook knowingly blocked access to pages for emergency services in Australia during their “news ban” last year. Whistleblowers allege the move was retaliation against then-pending legislation that forced platforms to pay news publishers for content shared on the platform. The allegation hinges on a claim that Facebook deliberately broadened an algorithm that classified any page sharing 60% news content as a news provider (instead of their long-standing database of news organizations) and blocked them from Australian users, effectively impeding access to fire services, state health services, and charities.
The whistleblowers also alleged that the takedown was meant to help Facebook negotiate amendments to the bill before lifting the news ban, with the report detailing leaked documents showing Facebook officials praised the takedown strategy internally (although they publicly denied that the takedown of government pages was a deliberate tactic). Many activists also condemned FB’s use of blocking as a negotiation tactic, and called for greater oversight.
COVERAGE
Wall Street Journal, Facebook Deliberately Caused Havoc in Australia to Influence New Law, Whistleblowers Say
BBC, Facebook accused of deliberately disrupting Australia emergency services
The Guardian, Facebook whistleblowers allege government and emergency services hit by Australia news ban was a deliberate tactic
The Verge, Whistleblowers claim Facebook’s chaotic Australia news ban was a negotiating tactic
CNet, Facebook Accused of Deliberately Causing Havoc in Australia Over News Content Law
Engadget, Facebook accused of deliberately blocking government and health pages in Australia
Gizmodo, Facebook Accused of Deliberately Blocking Emergency Services That Time It Pulled News From Australia
RESPONSES
Editor at Tech Policy Press, Justin Hendrix, tweeted, “When Facebook blocked news pages to pre-empt an Australian law that would force it to pay for content, it also took down hospitals, emergency services and charities. Company says that was inadvertent; whistleblowers allege it was a negotiating tactic.”
Accountable Tech tweeted, “Facebook didn't like a law being considered by the Australian Parliament, so they deliberately caused chaos. As a result, pages for hospitals, emergency services, and charities were taken down.”
Co-founder Jesse Lehrich tweeted, “WOW, this is low even for @Meta… when Australia moved to make FB share profits from news aggregation with journalists, they *deliberately* cut off access to hospitals, emergency services & charities as a negotiating tactic.”
The Real Facebook Oversight Board tweeted, “Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg were comfortable executing their ‘leverage strategy’ by suspending public service pages in the midst of Australia rolling out its COVID vaccine program and ‘fire and rescue services during fire season.’ Their words tell it all.”
Director of Research at AELP, Matt Stoller, tweeted, “This is a sort of holy #%*{! story showing Zuckerberg actively blackmailed the Australian government because he didn’t like a law it passed.”
CEO of Digital Content Next, Jason Kint, wrote in a Twitter thread: “Internal whistleblower docs and emails in the WSJ report indicate, despite the collateral damage in the blocking by Facebook including of health and government services, Facebook accelerated and went from 50% to 100%. Can you imagine making this decision? Are you human?”
Reporter for CNN Donie O’Sullivan tweeted, “Facebook wants you to believe this was done in ‘error.’ Deplorable stuff.”
Reporter for the Thomson Reuters Foundation Avi Asher-Shapiro tweeted, “Who are you going to believe—the Facebook whistleblower who is risking their career to go public about FB deliberately interfered w/hospitals in Australia as part of hard-nosed negations w/authorities... or the company which is saying, it didn't happen?”
Law professor Julia Powles tweeted, “We are so accustomed to seeing Facebook act with impunity. But this case is singular. We need to analyze criminal culpability. The team: 1. Was instructed not to make written records. 2. Signed bespoke NDAs. 3. Disabled typical remedial & preventative measures.”
Conversely, writing for Techdirt, Mike Masnick defended Facebook, saying: “Yes, Facebook broadly blocked news links for a little while until the law was slightly adjusted, but under the law, letting any links to news through would have triggered a provision that effectively would have enabled the government to simply order Facebook to pay huge sums to media companies.”
Clearview AI Agrees To Stop Selling Facial Recognition Data To Private Companies
Clearview AI has agreed to stop the sale of its facial recognition services to private companies in the US as a part of a court settlement. The settlement stems from a lawsuit filed in 2020 by the American Civil Liberties Union, which alleged that Clearview violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act when it collected biometric data from Illinois residents without their consent.
Applauding the terms of the settlement, privacy activists are using the momentum gained in Illinois to double-down on their calls for national, proactive privacy safeguards to protect against extractive data practices and privacy violations. In particular, advocates have their eyes on Clearview’s contracts with the public sector. In 2020, Clearview pivoted away from selling access to its facial registration database and began expanding its partnerships to local law enforcement and federal agencies. In February, we reported on Clearview AI’s plan to store every human face in their database as well as their goal to expand their work into the private sector. The latest settlement adds limits to its use of their vast collection of face images, but digital activists are intensifying their demands for Congress to crackdown on facial recognition technology and nonconsensual data collection.
COVERAGE
The Verge, Clearview AI agrees to permanent ban on selling facial recognition to private companies
AP News, Face-scanner Clearview agrees to limits in court settlement
The Washington Post, Clearview AI to stop selling facial recognition tool to private firms
The Hill, Clearview AI agrees to stop selling to private entities
Gizmodo, 'Milestone' Settlement Will Severely Limit Clearview AI's Ability to Profit Off Your Face
NBC News, Face-scanner Clearview agrees to limits in court settlement
RESPONSES
The ACLU tweeted, “BREAKING: Today we reached a settlement with Clearview AI — a secretive face surveillance company claiming to have captured more than ten billion faceprints from people’s online photos across the globe. This is a huge win.”
Tiffany C. Li, Fellow at the Yale Information Society Project, tweeted, “Big win for the ACLU and privacy advocates! Note that the settlement stops Clearview AI from selling its facial recognition database, but doesn’t stop them from selling their algorithms or software services.”
She later tweeted: “But what if you’re unhappy that your face data was used in Clearview AI’s facial recognition algorithm? This is where algorithmic destruction comes in! It’s a privacy remedy the FTC has started using. Other agencies worldwide are considering it too.“
Alex Engler, fellow in Governance at Brookings Institution, tweeted, “Ok, so, I have come to think this outcome is terrible, even in Illinois. In five years, Clearview will be able to sell its facial recognition app in the state with the strongest privacy laws. Only restriction is individual opt out, where you have to—YUP—upload a photo of your face
In a follow-up, Engler tweeted, “Note: this isn't a criticism of @ACLU —I'm sure they did all they could. It is however a damning indictment of our current privacy laws.”
Privacy Counsel at Epic, Calli Schroeder tweeted, “Anyway, get yourself a BIPA, down with facial rec, and I hope this fuels some of the ongoing actions against Clearview elsewhere in the world as well.”
Eva Galperin, Director of Cybersecurity at Electronic Frontier Foundation, tweeted, “I'm glad that Clearview AI will curb at least some of their sleazy behavior, but I can't help thinking of @cmcsherr's battle cry, which is ‘Total victory is never enough.’”
In a statement, the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project said, “This is a milestone for civil rights, and the ACLU deserves our thanks for once again safeguarding our Constitution.”
ICE Built Surveillance System By Tapping Utility Records And Drivers Licenses
A new study coming from Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy & Technology has revealed that the U.S Immigrations & Customs Enforcement (ICE) has built a vast “dragnet” surveillance system from extracting data from the private and public sector. The report details how ICE has lifted customer records from utility companies and searched through driver records to locate and deport undocumented immigrants. Through contracts with data brokers, ICE has accessed the utility record information belonging to over 218 million customers nationwide and has been able to bypass legal and constitutional privacy protections
ICE’s increasing investment in digital surveillance, data collection, and data-sharing initiatives has left many immigration rights activists and privacy experts alarmed. In April, a coalition of immigration advocacy groups brought a lawsuit against ICE for its Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP) and its collection of immigrants’ metadata through invasive monitoring as they await deportation proceedings. Amidst confusion about how enforcement agencies share data between each other, privacy experts like Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy & Technology are urging states and Congress to take legislative action to reduce the number of deportations and protect people from warrantless data collection.
Thomson Reuters, a media conglomerate that contracted with ICE for data brokerage services, announced they will be conducting a comprehensive probe of its products and services to assess their impacts on human rights.
COVERAGE
The Verge, ICE uses data brokers to bypass surveillance restrictions, report finds
Gizmodo, ICE Has Spent $2.8 Billion on Surveillance Tech Since 2008: Report
CNET, ICE Uses Private Data Brokers to Circumvent Immigrant Sanctuary Laws, Report Says
The Guardian, US immigration agency explores data loophole to obtain information on deportation targets
RESPONSES
Georgetown Law’s Center for Privacy & Technology tweeted, “ Lawmakers need to sever *all* the routes ICE can use to violate Americans’ privacy. Our report #AmericanDragnet describes loopholes in existing laws—and explains how states can patch them.”
The ACLU tweeted, “The government often unleashes its surveillance capabilities on our most vulnerable communities first, including immigrants. But time and again, these intrusive programs expand to encompass everyone. ICE surveillance tears apart immigrant families — and is a privacy nightmare.”
EFF tweeted, “ICE’s human rights record is both horrific and well-documented. After coming under increasing criticism for its ties to the agency, @thomsonreuters is taking a good first step in conducting a company-wide human rights assessment of its products & services.”
In a statement to The Verge, Cinthya Rodriguez, organizer at Mijente, tweeted, “The report shows one piece of the massive puzzle that is ICE digital surveillance. We’re calling on local govts to investigate & cut contracts tht share our personal info w/ ICE.”
Harsha Walia, immigration rights activist and author, tweeted, “US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has built vast digital surveillance system that gives it access to personal details of almost EVERY person in America, becoming what is in effect a domestic surveillance agency.”
Catheryn Paul, Government Relations & Public Policy Manager at CASA tweeted, “Grateful for the tireless efforts of the @GeorgetownCPT team in producing this report. This #AmericanDragnet report is a MUST READ that breaks down the horrific surveillance tactics that ICE uses to violate our privacy and use data to fuel the deportation machine.”
OPEN TABS
Facebook fails to apply fact-check labels to “energy independence” misinformation (Media Matters)
Opinion: Elon Musk's Twitter takeover exposes the real threat to free speech: Big Tech monopolies (CNN)
The federal government must address national security concerns in antitrust reforms (CyberScoop)
Dating app companies sue Google over billing system rules (The Hill)
Minnesota Wants to Ban Under-18s From User-Generated Content Services (Technology & Marketing Law Blog)
How YouTube Can Rewrite the Past and Shape an Election (Wired)